1.(a)

Defendant B’s shares Co., Ltd. (10,000 won per share) 6,150 shares

B. Defendant C is a stock company E.

Around 2015, the Plaintiff trusted 6,150 shares of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) to Defendant B around 2015; the Plaintiff trusted 6,150 shares of Non-Party Company to Defendant C around 2014; Defendant C held 4,100 shares of Non-Party Company until now; the Plaintiff trusted 6,150 shares of Non-Party Company to Defendant D around 2014; and Defendant D held 2,050 shares until now. There is no dispute between the respective parties.

The Defendants acknowledged each title trust facts, but argued to the effect that the Plaintiff paid the Defendants the earnings from the increase in company value or the price for the title trust, which was not paid to the Defendants, and thus cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the profits or the price for the title trust to the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, it is confirmed that all shares of the non-party company owned by Defendant B, shares of the non-party company owned by Defendant C, shares of the non-party company owned by Defendant C, shares of 4,100, and shares of the non-party company owned by Defendant D are owned by the plaintiff.

(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the ownership of the shares of the non-party company held by each of the Defendants against the Defendants. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the ownership of the Plaintiff’s shares.